Comments on: The Ubuntu Look Can be Changed, but Linux CAN NOT have a “Look”.

By: RM

RM — Fri, 29 May 2009 11:48:25 +0000

So, what’s a better idea, instead of giving Ubuntu an attractive look, give Ubuntu (or any mainstream distro for that matter) to the lowest common denominator? What’s the point of keeping something up to date if it isn’t going to change with the times, and that includes appearance along with a number of things. Ubuntu will never be a distro that people choose for the barest installs. There’s other distros that do that better, and the software that works on Ubuntu should still work on them, so why try to make something all things to all people. Ubuntu is popular for a reason, so let it do what it does because it does it well. Ubuntu is designed to be a popular OS. That’s a very big reason why it has been designed to have an attractive look.

Other distros will continue to do what they do, and users who want a lightweight OS that’s up to date will find them.

Hint: those distros never did it because they wanted to be popular. They’re not suddenly going to disappear because Ubuntu has more users than them.

You’re dangerously close to being on a Linux “high horse” that people often get on when they rant about Ubuntu.

By: Uncle B

Uncle B — Fri, 08 May 2009 18:27:24 +0000

Ubuntu has set me free! No more blue screens of death, no more sudden freezes, no more hard-drive loading, no more slowing down whenever, no more B.S. communications with Microsoft, no more foolish super heavy word files, no more sudden failures of spreadsheets, no more virus protection B.S. I like the set-up, mostly because every time I see the brown theme, I feel certain my computer will be good for computing another session, no cursing, no idiot remarks popping up, fast easy switching from page to page, two complete desktops, as many pages, programs open as I chose without noticeable slow-downs, and Firefox for the net – very fast and totally compatible with openOffice software, a computer freak’s wildest dreams, all in one download. Do it today, you will miss the American flash and commercial flair, like the cars in the fifties with wings on the trunks, but if you like plain practical working solutions to life’s small problems, you will soon grow to love Ubuntu, and be glad you have it! No glitter no loud sirens, no pretty dancing girls, no loud promotions no glitter no tinsel, not even flashing lights, fancy naming, complex English, bells and fancy colors, just a damn good, dependable working system, the best I have found in the world, and growing fast in popularity if I can help it!

By: Krestort

Krestort — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:34:59 +0000

Recently one of my friends started an obsession with the actor Nicholas Cage (mostly because their names are both Nicholas – sounds strange but he is strange and that isn’t the point). After asking around the rest of my friends he seems to be a very controversial figure.
What does the forum think? do you love the all action superhero? Or do you hate the droning voice of the man who does nothing but action shooters?

By: Colby Alvarez

Colby Alvarez — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:54:14 +0000

I love and support Chris always!

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 03:46:12 +0000

You can get a decent look and feel on Linux. I ran 7.04 on a 7 year old laptop (Compaq Armada with 384 mb of ram and a S3 integrated graphics chip), and I managed to have compositing through Metacity without too much slowdown. Granted Xfce would have ran better, but the wife wanted something that looked decent. As a non-linux person, look and feel mattered.

So while all the old-hats of linux can whine and moan about just changing the settings. The new PC users just want something that works while looking decent. The current defaults for Ubuntu (and most other distros I’ve tried) fail at this.

Likewise a standard look and feel doesn’t require surrendering freedoms, it means that you desire the best experience for a user. Something like the Print Icon should look the same on all apps, and generally be located in the same spot in the menu.

By: Alex

Alex — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 02:22:19 +0000

I don’t know what the big deal is with the Ubuntu default look. While I admit the brown scheme is hideous, I change everything anyway. Since there is the constant battle between the white bright themes and the dark themes, none will ever be the only look of Ubuntu or Linux. I have changed every aspect of my computer, the only thing that looks the same now is the bar with the applications and such, but I’ll get to that as some point. I also like the dark themes, so that’s what I use. I do agree with the person above that said KDE was trying to be Windows though, I put in a Kubuntu cd, saw the desktop and left.

By: CÃ¢t Linux Ã®n ultimele 14 zile? | ArLUG (Arad Linux Users Group)

CÃ¢t Linux Ã®n ultimele 14 zile? | ArLUG (Arad Linux Users Group) — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:46:46 +0000

[...] The Ubuntu Look Can be Changed, but Linux CAN NOT have a â€œLookâ€ [...]

By: ÐÐ½Ñ‚Ð¾Ð½ ÐšÐ¾Ð²Ð°Ð»ÐµÐ²

ÐÐ½Ñ‚Ð¾Ð½ ÐšÐ¾Ð²Ð°Ð»ÐµÐ² — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:39:58 +0000

By: Een Linux look? | Computertaal

Een Linux look? | Computertaal — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:01:50 +0000

[...] Windows kennen we door het grafisch geweld. Gebruikers klagen dan ook vaak dat Linux niet over dergelijk lekkers beschikt. Zelfs Ubuntu is niet echt een grafische schoonheid. Volgens deze blogger is dat ook helemaal niet nodig: Linux wil je immers ook op pc’s zetten die niet zo’n grafische hoogstandjes kunnen weergeven. Was dat immers niet de basis van het besturingssysteem? [...]

By: EdgenePague

EdgenePague — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:30:36 +0000

Hello! fort worth breast augmentation